Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Comparing the Quality of Crowdsourced Data Contributed by Expert and Non-Experts
Authors: See, Linda
Comber, Alexis John
Salk, Carl
Fritz, Steffen
van der Velde, Marijn
Perger, Christoph
Schill, Christian
McCallum, Ian
Kraxner, Florian
Obersteiner, Michael
First Published: 31-Jul-2013
Publisher: Public Library of Science
Citation: PLoS ONE, 2013, 8 (7), e69958
Abstract: There is currently a lack of in-situ environmental data for the calibration and validation of remotely sensed products and for the development and verification of models. Crowdsourcing is increasingly being seen as one potentially powerful way of increasing the supply of in-situ data but there are a number of concerns over the subsequent use of the data, in particular over data quality. This paper examined crowdsourced data from the Geo-Wiki crowdsourcing tool for land cover validation to determine whether there were significant differences in quality between the answers provided by experts and nonexperts in the domain of remote sensing and therefore the extent to which crowdsourced data describing human impact and land cover can be used in further scientific research. The results showed that there was little difference between experts and non-experts in identifying human impact although results varied by land cover while experts were better than nonexperts in identifying the land cover type. This suggests the need to create training materials with more examples in those areas where difficulties in identification were encountered, and to offer some method for contributors to reflect on the information they contribute, perhaps by feeding back the evaluations of their contributed data or by making additional training materials available. Accuracies were also found to be higher when the volunteers were more consistent in their responses at a given location and when they indicated higher confidence, which suggests that these additional pieces of information could be used in the development of robust measures of quality in the future.
DOI Link: 10.1371/journal.pone.0069958
eISSN: 1932-6203
Version: Publisher Version
Status: Peer-reviewed
Type: Journal Article
Rights: Copyright © 2013 See et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Appears in Collections:Published Articles, Dept. of Geography

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
See_et_al_PlosOne_2013.pdfPublished (publisher PDF)2.46 MBAdobe PDFView/Open

Items in LRA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.